INTERNATIONAL LAW AND WORLD POLITICS essays

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND WORLD POLITICS essays In order to fully understand the outcome of these three scenarios in relation to the international law and the use of force, we must first discuss the law as defined by the UN Charter. The UN Charter governs the international law and the use of force and has outlined very clear criteria for "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state" (article 2 4). The Charter strives to provide a state the ability to maintain its sovereignty and individual state integrity while outlining two instances that the use of force may be used. The first is individual or self defense' (art. 51), when a member state is the victim of aggression. As Guicherd points out, there are limitations to this justification. For example, Resolution 2625 states that assistance to either party engaged in a civil war is prohibited (20). The second justification for use of force is when the Security Council recognizes the "existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" (art. 39) and determines the use of coercive action is appropriate. It is important to note that there are coercive measures that can be taken that do not include the use of force, such as imposing sanction on a state found in violation. The three uses of force discussed here all differ from each other in conflict origin and political circumstances. In order to compare the military actions in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq a discussion of the circumstances under which the use of force took place is appropriate. All situations are unique and produce a gray area when determining the legality of the actions imposed by the United States, NATO and its allies. The justification and legality of the use of force in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have been hotly debated with opinions raging from in the case of Kosovo, "simple skepticism to vehement condemnat...